A Sydney transport company and its sole director have been convicted following a workplace incident in which a damaged 800-kilogram gate was left in a dangerous, unpowered state for more than a year — ultimately injuring a worker.

The NSW District Court handed down findings in April 2026 in SafeWork NSW v SMB Australia Car Transport Employment Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v SMB Australia Car Transport Pty Ltd; SafeWork NSW v Mytkowski, a prosecution that exposes some of the most fundamental failures in workplace safety management: no written procedures, no adequate risk assessment, and no follow-through on identified repairs.

What happened

SMB Australia Car Transport Employment Pty Ltd employed approximately 11 workers at a vehicle storage yard in Seven Hills in western Sydney, with the site operated by a related company, SMB Australia Car Transport Pty Ltd — both controlled by sole director Andrew Mytkowski. In June 2020, a truck reversed into one of the site’s southern sliding gates, knocking out the powered gate system. Each gate was approximately 11 metres long, nearly two metres high, and weighed approximately 800 kilograms. After the collision, the gates were left in a manual state — meaning workers had to operate them by hand — without the powered mechanism that controlled their movement.

Despite the significant hazard this created, no adequate risk assessment was conducted, no safe operating procedures were put in place, and repairs were not followed through. The gates remained in that condition for more than a year. A worker was subsequently injured when a gate moved unexpectedly.

The charges

All three defendants pleaded guilty. SMB Australia Car Transport Employment Pty Ltd was charged with failing its primary duty of care to workers. SMB Australia Car Transport Pty Ltd was charged with failing to ensure its fixtures and plant were without risks to health and safety. Andrew Mytkowski, as sole director, was charged with failing to exercise due diligence as an officer under the WHS Act. Sentencing has been set for 12 August 2026.

Why this case matters

The prosecution underscores some of the most basic — and most common — failures that lead to serious workplace incidents. The gate hazard was not a complex or hidden risk. It was visible, physical, and the result of a known incident. What the employer failed to do was respond to it systematically: no written procedures for manual gate operation, no formal risk assessment of the hazard created by the loss of powered control, and no documented follow-through on repairs.

The case is also a reminder that duty of care obligations do not just apply to risks that emerge without warning. When a workplace incident creates a new hazard — as the truck collision did — the PCBU’s obligation to assess and control that hazard begins immediately. A failure to act, even in the absence of a further injury, can still lead to prosecution. The inclusion of the sole director as a defendant serves as a reminder that officer liability under the WHS Act is real and personal.

The lesson for employers

When plant or infrastructure is damaged or modified — even temporarily — the appropriate response is immediate: assess the new risk, put interim controls in place, document the situation, and either repair the plant to its original safe standard or take it out of service. Leaving a known hazard unaddressed while waiting for repairs is not a legally acceptable position under Australian WHS law.